List of executive actions Obama plans to take

[RX8er]

We need more Governors saying this:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, in a written statement, said: "Guns require a finger to pull the trigger. The sad young man who did that in Newtown was clearly haunted by demons and no gun law could have saved the children in Sandy Hook Elementary from his terror."

[VMI77]

Someone on another forum pointed out something I missed.....the key here is "information" and its use and exchange at all levels of government and throughout the medical system. You have a CHL? Then you can't lie to the doctor, because if you do, it will be caught in a cross-check, and you'll be prosecuted for perjury, and they'll take your guns. Of course, this isn't going to happen instantly, but that's the objective. Obamacare was the foot in the door. It's really a pretty smart plan to use it as the vehicle for creating the kind of all encompassing data base they want. Any man on here with kids, whose wife doesn't understand the ramifications of a doctor's questions about guns (or is an anti), is hosed.

when did I "swear" to tell the truth to the doctor under penalty of perjury? he/she isn't an agent of the court. until they change the paperwork I and my kids can and will say "no" if and when asked if there are guns in the home.

It is against the law to lie to the Federal Government. You can be prosecuted for lying on a home mortgage application (and I don't mean for fraud), or lying on the Census (though I don't think anyone has been prosecuted). I don't think lying to the doctor is illegal at the moment, but I'd expect that under Obamacare, and in conjunction with these EO's, information provided by a doctor may be designated as "official" information, and therefore, lying to the doctor will be lying to the government. When that happens I'm sure there will be a warning telling you that lying to the doctor is a crime. Hey, it will just be for your safety and the safety of the public.....how can you get the right treatment, and how can the public know if a treatment is truly effective, if you lie to the doctor?

[VMI77]

when did I "swear" to tell the truth to the doctor under penalty of perjury? he/she isn't an agent of the court. until they change the paperwork I and my kids can and will say "no" if and when asked if there are guns in the home.

I must have been typing when you hit reply.

Someone on another forum pointed out something I missed.....the key here is "information" and its use and exchange at all levels of government and throughout the medical system. You have a CHL? Then you can't lie to the doctor, because if you do, it will be caught in a cross-check, and you'll be prosecuted for perjury, and they'll take your guns. Of course, this isn't going to happen instantly, but that's the objective. Obamacare was the foot in the door. It's really a pretty smart plan to use it as the vehicle for creating the kind of all encompassing data base they want. Any man on here with kids, whose wife doesn't understand the ramifications of a doctor's questions about guns (or is an anti), is hosed.

Unless they make it part of the CHL law that I have to disclose this to my doctor, they have nothing to stand on to take my gun or charge with perjury. Who hasn't "lied" to their doctor before.

Answer in my comment to SewTexas.

[VMI77]

Someone on another forum pointed out something I missed.....the key here is "information" and its use and exchange at all levels of government and throughout the medical system. You have a CHL? Then you can't lie to the doctor, because if you do, it will be caught in a cross-check, and you'll be prosecuted for perjury, and they'll take your guns. Of course, this isn't going to happen instantly, but that's the objective. Obamacare was the foot in the door. It's really a pretty smart plan to use it as the vehicle for creating the kind of all encompassing data base they want. Any man on here with kids, whose wife doesn't understand the ramifications of a doctor's questions about guns (or is an anti), is hosed.

Unless they make it part of the CHL law that I have to disclose this to my doctor, they have nothing to stand on to take my gun or charge with perjury. Who hasn't "lied" to their doctor before.

Also, having a CHL is not proof that you have a gun.

True, but in this context, irrelevant. They wouldn't come arrest you because a cross check revealed you have a CHL. They may not even bother with it 99% of the time: if it comes to that, I'm sure enforcement will be arbitrary. If there is enforcement, it will work one of two ways: 1) the most difficult way will be to get a search warrant for your home (and they probably wouldn't bother unless you were a target for another reason as well); or 2), they might incorporate into the system some authority, for your own safety and mental health of course, as well as the safety and mental health of your children and the children of your community, to determine whether or not you have firearms in the home. My guess would be that they'd send you an official form letter asking you to state whether or not you own guns --solely, of course, for the purpose of ensuring that your medical records are accurate. The letter will make it clear that a false statement is a violation of federal law. Then, they have you, if and when they want you.

[The Annoyed Man]

Just received the letter from BATFE regarding transfers between individuals.

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2013/ ... iduals.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't have a problem with being "able" to do it this way. In fact, if I was selling to someone I didn't know, I might want to do it this way, not only so that I didn't sell a gun to a criminal or psycho, but for my own protection as well. However, making it a legal requirement would be a joke, since anyone with criminal intent isn't going to follow the law anyway.

What I object to is being forced into a situation where I have to pay a fee to an FFL in order to transact a FTF transaction. If FFLs were willing to offer this as a "free service" for the good of the gun-owing community, I would have less problem with it; but I have no reasonable expectation that any FFL would be willing to do this for free, nor do I think they should be required to do this for free. Processing my transaction costs them money. They should NOT have to do that for free. But then, neither should I be required to use an FFL's service unless I am buying a gun from his inventory.

Further, it is possible that one might own more than one firearm which was acquired quite lawfully in FTF transactions in which no paperwork was involved. IF I had ever participated in any such transactions, I would very much prefer those transactions to remain "off the books" for the primary reason that the less the government knows about me, the happier I am, particularly when it comes to any firearms I might own. The thing is, I KNOW THAT I AM A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN. I don't believe that I should be required to PROVE it every time I want to make a private purchase. AND, as we all know because we repeat it over and over again, THIS WOULD ONLY AFFECT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS. Criminals will continue to obtain guns the same way they always have—illegally and off the books.

As far as answering my doctor's questions, I'm simply going to refuse to discuss it. If asked why, I'll answer that it's because once the information you collect here leaves this office, you no longer have control over it or who gets it or what is done with it, and neither do I. I have privacy expectations, even if you and Adolf Obama don't.

When I had my identity stolen several years ago, I was informed by police that it likely happened through my health insurance company at the time. Including my gun ownership in my healthcare data is an open invitation to someone who wants to steal guns to use my address information to break into my house and take them. It will be the same story as what happened in NY when a burglar used the addresses released by that commie rag to break into a home that was listed on the published map and stole his guns.

If they want to keep guns from being stolen, then they need to respect our privacy.

[jollyman]

Who knows exactly what all this means. Its very vague, but rest assured its not over.

They want IT vague so they can interpret IT anyway they want later.

[VMI77]

Just received the letter from BATFE regarding transfers between individuals.

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2013/ ... iduals.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't have a problem with being "able" to do it this way. In fact, if I was selling to someone I didn't know, I might want to do it this way, not only so that I didn't sell a gun to a criminal or psycho, but for my own protection as well. However, making it a legal requirement would be a joke, since anyone with criminal intent isn't going to follow the law anyway.

What I object to is being forced into a situation where I have to pay a fee to an FFL in order to transact a FTF transaction. If FFLs were willing to offer this as a "free service" for the good of the gun-owing community, I would have less problem with it; but I have no reasonable expectation that any FFL would be willing to do this for free, nor do I think they should be required to do this for free. Processing my transaction costs them money. They should NOT have to do that for free. But then, neither should I be required to use an FFL's service unless I am buying a gun from his inventory.

Further, it is possible that one might own more than one firearm which was acquired quite lawfully in FTF transactions in which no paperwork was involved. IF I had ever participated in any such transactions, I would very much prefer those transactions to remain "off the books" for the primary reason that the less the government knows about me, the happier I am, particularly when it comes to any firearms I might own. The thing is, I KNOW THAT I AM A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN. I don't believe that I should be required to PROVE it every time I want to make a private purchase. AND, as we all know because we repeat it over and over again, THIS WOULD ONLY AFFECT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS. Criminals will continue to obtain guns the same way they always have—illegally and off the books.

As far as answering my doctor's questions, I'm simply going to refuse to discuss it. If asked why, I'll answer that it's because once the information you collect here leaves this office, you no longer have control over it or who gets it or what is done with it, and neither do I. I have privacy expectations, even if you and Adolf Obama don't.

When I had my identity stolen several years ago, I was informed by police that it likely happened through my health insurance company at the time. Including my gun ownership in my healthcare data is an open invitation to someone who wants to steal guns to use my address information to break into my house and take them. It will be the same story as what happened in NY when a burglar used the addresses released by that commie rag to break into a home that was listed on the published map and stole his guns.

If they want to keep guns from being stolen, then they need to respect our privacy.

I pretty much agree. I'm sure in most instances I would not want to pay transfer fees because I'd be selling guns to people I know. And like I said, it would be a joke, because as you said, it would only affect law abiding citizens.

I think the doctor thing might be a little more tricky. Refusing to answer may be considered a mental disorder. I saw this posted by a pharmacist on a financial forum (talking about the DSM):

The number of mental diseases identified in the manual has risen from 100 to 300 in the last 15 years. That translated to a virtual epidemic of madness sweeping the country. Only a decade ago, psychiatrists said one in 10 Americans had a mental illness. Now according to the manual, half the population is mentally ill.

Does your 10-year-old dislike doing her homework? Better get her to the nearest couch because she’s got "Developmental Arithmetic Disorder" (billing code 315.4). Maybe you’re a teenager who argues with his parents. Uh-oh. Better get some medication pronto because you’ve got "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" (billing code 313.8). And if your wife won’t tell you that she snuck out to the outlet mall last Saturday, then she’s definitely got "Selective Mutism" (billing code 313.2).

Under this insanity, refusing to answer may get you coded 313.8. The mental health/doctor stuff is what I find most frightening and insidious in these EO's. We have an example of how the left works the psychiatric angle in the old Soviet Union. And Mr. Obama seems to have a predilection for following in the footsteps of past socialist dictators.



http://www.picpaste.com/thumbs/0d21813c ... 371638.jpg

[canvasbck]

Just received the letter from BATFE regarding transfers between individuals.

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2013/ ... iduals.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't have a problem with being "able" to do it this way. In fact, if I was selling to someone I didn't know, I might want to do it this way, not only so that I didn't sell a gun to a criminal or psycho, but for my own protection as well. However, making it a legal requirement would be a joke, since anyone with criminal intent isn't going to follow the law anyway.

I really want to do a youtube video with two gangbangers doing a gun deal, then the gang banger selling the "piece" insists that they go to Cabellas to legally finish the transfer.

[mentalarson]

Does your 10-year-old dislike doing her homework? Better get her to the nearest couch because she’s got "Developmental Arithmetic Disorder" (billing code 315.4). Maybe you’re a teenager who argues with his parents. Uh-oh. Better get some medication pronto because you’ve got "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" (billing code 313.8). And if your wife won’t tell you that she snuck out to the outlet mall last Saturday, then she’s definitely got "Selective Mutism" (billing code 313.2).

I prescribe spanking early and as often as one of these disorders requires it...but my wife doesn't care for it much.

How much more of this bull will reasonable people take before someone goes off the rails?
Seeking refuge among people primarily governed by common sense is why were are immigrating from WA to TX.

[2firfun50]

Just received the letter from BATFE regarding transfers between individuals.

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2013/ ... iduals.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If all future private transactions were to require the process in the letter, I'm betting the state will also require the FFL to collect sales tax. No different than selling your car to an individual. Title transfer fees and sales tax.

[Rex B]

With respect to #14, directing the CDC to "research" the causes of gun violence, I think that it quite safe to say that they will be secretly ordered to turn our some antigun results using cherry-picked data. They will be told what results to report before they even begin the research process.

CDC was asked to determine if AWB 1.0 worked. They reported back that it had no effect at all

[newTexan]

Redacted. Humor found wanting.

[VMI77]

With respect to #14, directing the CDC to "research" the causes of gun violence, I think that it quite safe to say that they will be secretly ordered to turn our some antigun results using cherry-picked data. They will be told what results to report before they even begin the research process.

CDC was asked to determine if AWB 1.0 worked. They reported back that it had no effect at all

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

The Liar in Chief wasn't the prez back then. The new CDC isn't your Dad's CDC, it belongs to The One.

[MolonLabe]

I left a state where pediatricians routinely asked if parents owned firearms. The first time I was asked I was unprepared to answer, II politely told the doc that I didn't think that was any of his business. He took note of my answer in my children's charts. It was routine to be asked each and every following visit. I remeber how unsettling it felt, it wasnt just a checkmark being added to a routine bike helmet, vaccine lecture list either. It was one of the many reasons we decided to flee to Texas.

[Rex B]

The EOs were not as bad as I was expecting.

That's a list of proposed EO's.

Wait until you see how the actual EO's are worded. I bet they bear little resemblance to the benign descriptions released today.